IMPORTANCE Hospitalization for acute medical illness is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although efforts designed to increase use of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis are intended to reduce hospital-associated VTE, whether higher rates of prophylaxis reduce VTE in medical patients is unknown.OBJECTIVE To examine the association between pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis rates and hospital-associated VTE.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective, multicenter cohort study conducted at 35 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide quality collaborative from January 1, 2011, through September 13, 2012. Trained medical record abstractors at each hospital collected data from 31 260 general medical patients. Use of VTE prophylaxis on admission, VTE risk factors, and VTE events 90 days after hospital admission were recorded using a combination of medical record review and telephone follow-up. Hospitals were grouped into tertiles of performance based on rate of pharmacologic prophylaxis use on admission for at-risk patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Association between hospital performance and time to development of VTE within 90 days of hospital admission.RESULTS A total of 14 563 of 20 794 patients (70.0%) eligible for pharmacologic prophylaxis received prophylaxis on admission. The rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis use at hospitals in the high-, moderate-, and low-performance tertiles were 85.8%, 72.6%, and 55.5%, respectively. A total of 226 VTE events occurred during 1 765 449 days of patient follow-up. Compared with patients at hospitals in the highest-performance tertile, the hazard of VTE in patients at hospitals in moderate-performance (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.62) and low-performance (hazard ratio, 0.96, 95% CI, 0.63-1.45) tertiles did not differ after adjusting for potential confounders. Results remained robust when examining mechanical prophylaxis, prophylaxis use throughout the hospitalization, and subsequent inpatient stays after discharge from the index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe occurrence of 90-day VTE in medical patients after hospitalization is low. Patients who receive care at hospitals that have lower rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis do not have higher adjusted hazards of VTE, even after accounting for individual receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Efforts to increase rates of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients may not substantively reduce this adverse outcome.

No abstract

Background Complications associated with central venous catheters (CVCs) increase over time. Although early removal of unnecessary CVCs is important to prevent complications, the extent to which clinicians are aware that their patients have a CVC is unknown. Objective To assess how often clinicians were aware of the presence of triple-lumen or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in hospitalized patients. Design Multicenter, cross-sectional study. Setting Three academic medical centers in the United States. Patients Hospitalized medical patients in intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU settings. Measurements To ascertain awareness of CVCs, we first determined whether a PICC or triple-lumen catheter was present; clinicians were then queried about device presence. Differences in device awareness among clinicians were assessed by chi-square tests. Results 990 patients were evaluated, and 1881 clinician assessments were done. The overall prevalence of CVCs was 21.1% (n = 209), of which 60.3% (126 of 209) were PICCs. A total of 21.2% (90 of 425) of clinicians interviewed were unaware of the presence of a CVC. Unawareness was greatest among patients with PICCs, where 25.1% (60 of 239) of clinicians were unaware of PICC presence. Teaching attendings and hospitalists were more frequently unaware of the presence of CVCs than interns and residents (25.8% and 30.5%, respectively, vs. 16.4%). Critical care physicians were more likely to be aware of CVC presence than general medicine physicians (12.6% vs. 26.2%; P = 0.003). Limitations Awareness was determined at 1 point in time and not linked to outcomes. Patient length of stay and indication for CVC were not recorded. Conclusion Clinicians are frequently unaware of the presence of PICCs and triple-lumen catheters in hospitalized patients. Further study of mechanisms that ensure that clinicians are aware of these devices so that they may assess their necessity seems warranted. Primary Funding Source None.

Aims: To investigate whether cholesterol and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) measurements in fluids are more sensitive and specific markers for differentiating between exudates and transudates, as confirmed clinically, than the measurement of fluid total protein concentrations alone. Patients/Methods: Serum, pleural fluid, and ascitic fluid from 61 unselected patients were analysed retrospectively for LDH, cholesterol, and total protein. Clinical classification of transudate or exudate was reached independently by reviewing clinical details and laboratory data. Results: Of 54 samples (40 pleural fluid and 14 ascitic fluid), 30 were classified clinically as exudates and 24 as transudates. Fluid LDH and fluid to serum protein ratio measurements were equally good at differentiating between exudates and transudates, with a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 79%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 86%. A combination of these parameters improved sensitivity to 100% and NPV to 100%, but lowered the specificity to 71% and PPV to 81%. This combination achieved a higher efficiency than Light's criteria. Conclusion: Routine measurement of fluid LDH values and the calculation of fluid to serum total protein ratios will aid in differentiating exudates from transudates.

BACKGROUND Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly inserted during hospitalization for a variety of clinical indications. OBJECTIVE To understand hospitalist experience, practice, knowledge, and opinions as they relate to PICCs. DESIGN AND SETTING Web‐based survey of hospitalists in 5 healthcare systems (representing a total of 10 hospitals) across Michigan. RESULTS The overall response rate was 63% (227 hospitalists received invitations; 144 responded). Compared with central venous catheters, hospitalists felt that PICCs were safer to insert (81%) and preferred by patients (74%). Although 84% of respondents reported that placing a PICC solely to obtain venous access was appropriate, 47% also indicated that 10%–25% of PICCs inserted in their hospitals might represent inappropriate placement. Hospitalist knowledge regarding PICC‐related venous thromboembolism was poor, with only 4% recognizing that PICC‐tip verification was performed principally to prevent thrombosis. Furthermore, several potential practice‐related concerns were identified: one‐third of hospitalists indicated that they never examine PICCs for externally evident problems, such as exit‐site infection; 48% responded that once inserted, they did not remove PICCs until a patient was ready for discharge; and 51% admitted that, at least once, they had “forgotten” that their patient had a PICC. CONCLUSIONS Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge related to PICCs appear to be variable. Because PICC use is growing and is often associated with complications, examining the impact of such variation is necessary. Hospitals and health systems should consider developing and implementing mechanisms to monitor PICC use and adverse events. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2013;8:309–314. © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.